[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public Licence"

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> [Please CC on replies, M-F-T set accordingly.]

> I'd like an opinion about the DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public
> License", included below. A utility normally shipped with X11, mkcfm,
> was recently removed because the license was regarded non-free; this
> statement seems to come from Xorg upstream, see their Bug#5553 [1].

>   [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5553

> One can find this utility shipped in Sarge's version of the 'xutils'
> package, and the full license included in its debian/copyright file,
> which makes me think the license has been ruled to be DFSG-free in the
> past.

> I took a quick look myself and, although I saw a couple of potentially
> problematic points, I'm more interested in -legal's assessment of whether
> this license surpasses or not the limits that are being applied to main
> nowadays.

> 6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with all
> applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and distribution of
> the Subject Software, including but not limited to, all export and import
> control laws and regulations of the U.S. government and other countries.
> Recipient may not distribute Subject Software that (i) in any way infringes
> (directly or contributorily) the rights (including patent, copyright, trade
> secret, trademark or other intellectual property rights of any kind) of any
> other person or entity, or (ii) breaches any representation or warranty,
> express, implied or statutory, which under any applicable law it might be
> deemed to have been distributed.

Requires compliance with laws as a condition of the license.  Definitely

> 7. Claims of Infringement. If Recipient at any time has knowledge of any one
> or more third party claims that reproduction, modification, use, distribu-
> tion, import or sale of Subject Software (including particular functionality
> or code incorporated in Subject Software) infringes the third party's intel-
> lectual property rights, Recipient must place in a well-identified web page
> bearing the title "LEGAL" a description of each such claim and a description
> of the party making each such claim in sufficient detail that a user of the
> Subject Software will know whom to contact regarding the claim. Also, upon
> gaining such knowledge of any such claim, Recipient must conspicuously
> include the URL for such web page in the Required Notice, and in the text of
> any related documentation, license agreement or collateral in which Recipient
> describes end user's rights relating to the Subject Software. If Recipient
> obtains such knowledge after it makes Subject Software available to any other
> person or entity, Recipient shall take other steps (such as notifying appro-
> priate mailing lists or newsgroups) reasonably calculated to provide such
> knowledge to those who received the Subject Software.

Kinda weird, but I'm not sure it's non-free.

> 10. Indemnity. Recipient shall be solely responsible for damages arising,
> directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights under this License.
> Recipient will defend, indemnify and hold SGI and its successors and assigns
> harmless from and against any loss, liability, damages, costs or expenses
> (including the payment of reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of (Recipi-
> ent's use, modification, reproduction and distribution of the Subject Soft-
> ware or out of any representation or warranty made by Recipient.

Hmm, not sure if there's any sort of consensus on indemnification, or if
there's even been discussion of it (other than, er, in the Sun Java thread);
this specifically discusses liability arising out of Recipient's use,
modification, copying, and distribution, so I suppose it's not unreasonable
here that SGI wishes to avoid being held responsible for such things.

> 12. Miscellaneous. This License represents the complete agreement concerning
> subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unen-
> forceable by any judicial or administrative authority having proper jurisdic-
> tion with respect thereto, such provision shall be reformed so as to achieve
> as nearly as possible the same economic effect as the original provision and
> the remainder of this License will remain in effect. This License shall be
> governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States
> and the State of California as applied to agreements entered into and to be
> performed entirely within California between California residents. Any liti-
> gation relating to this License shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdic-
> tion of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California (or, absent
> subject matter jurisdiction in such courts, the courts of the State of Cali-
> fornia), with venue lying exclusively in Santa Clara County, California, with
> the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court
> costs and reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. The application of the
> United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is
> expressly excluded. Any law or regulation that provides that the language of
> a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this
> License.

Includes choice of venue clause.  Plenty of discussion on the list about
that, no need to repeat it here; at least it's not universally considered

Everything else looks ok to me.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: